Here's the full quote: "We are looking at how the richest 10% of people, those earning over £50,000, could make a further contribution. The vast majority of people in the country would consider £50,000 a very large salary: these are not the middle income earners."

I would disagree with that. I would say that £50k is very much a 'middle income', and a sum that a huge amount of people believe they are capable of earning or aspire to earn, even if they don't earn that much currently.

It's a rather bold line for the Lib Dems to take, really, given its inherently anti-aspiration.

That's just because you're innumerate - you clearly quote the line above stating that only the top 10% of the population earn this amount. Top 10% of a distribution obviously isn't the middle, you clod.

which is loads more than either of my parents have ever earned and I'd still count myself as being somewhere at the bottom end of the middle class. So it certainly seems reasonable enough to tax those earning above £50k.

Also, how is it 'anti-aspirational'? Not many people are lucky enough to have career opportunities which result in them earning over £50,000 a year, so I seriously doubt those lucky few are suddenly going to become underachievers because of higher taxation.

srsly...the reason for different banding is to take into account how much one might need to actually live reasonably. Ideally there would be a constantly variable scale but that should really also tske into account everyones 'reasonable' costs, based on regional differences, special needs etc (wanting a bmw rather than a skoda or ford is NOT a need)

If you reduce life and all of its wonders down to the cold hard pursuit of cash, then 'aspiration' is about creating a desire in people to earn more. The idea of creating an 'aspiration society' has noting to do with whether or not that aspiration is ever likely to be realised by anyone. By increasing the wealth gap, holding those at the bottom down and by reducing their chances, this government are simultaneously increasing aspiration in those within the lower-income brackets (who are seeing their standard of living actually fall) and also those in the top-income brackets (who can see, and achieve, the increased rewards of being at the top).

A one bedroom flat in central London (I'm including Zone 2 in that) is £230 minimum. For a single person to be able to afford that (assuming they've saved the 10% minimum deposit), given that at maximum you'll get a mortgage for 4 x your gross salary, they'd have to be earning atleast £50K.

So are we saying that leaves London as a province of the wealthy only? And how will that work given how much industry there is there?

£50K might seem a lot elsewhere, but not in London.

"The idea of creating an 'aspiration society' has nothing to do with whether or not that aspiration is ever likely to be realised by anyone." Not quite - there still has to be a chance (or an illusion that there is a chance) otherwise nobody has any motive in aspiring at all.